- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PRAYER made in the writ petition is for quashing the notice issue under memo no. 1575/Ranchi dated 29.7.2006 ( Annexure-5) issued by the respondent no. 2 whereby the application for settlement of the shop situated on the Church Road Junction, Main Road Ranchi has been rejected and further prayer to unseal the shop premises. As per the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner the shop in question was settled to Smt. Parveen Sultana wife of Md. Nayeem in the year 1991 and on 15.9.1997 a partnership deed was constituted by and between Parveen Sultana and Md. Eqbal, brother of the petitioner for running a business in the name and style of Fency Electronics. Thereafter, the name of the shop was changed to Ramano Electronics. Petitioner was granted license under Bihar Shops and Establishments Act. Petitioner invested huge money in purchasing electronic goods and also got insured. It is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 1.7.2006 the allotment of the shop in the name of Parveen Sultana was cancelled by the respondent no. 3 in alleged violation of clause 5 of the agreement for creating tenancy in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner was ousted forcibly from the shop without preparing any inventory on 9.7.2006 and on 28.7.2006 petitioner filed representation stating that his articles were lying in the sealed shop. But instead of allowing the petitioner to procure the articles the shop was sought to be settled by virtue of an advertisement(annexure-5), which is impugned herein. Learned counsel for the respondent- Ranchi Municipal Corporation(R.M.C) has appeared and submitted that the shop in question was allotted to Parveen Sultana, who had created tenancy in favour of the brother of the petitioner and that is why allotment of the shop was cancelled. But the said Parveen Sultana has not challenged the order of cancellation. Even petitioner has not challenged the order of cancellation. Being a total stranger, however the petitioner has moved this court for cancellation of the notice inviting tender in which no fault can be found as advertisement was issued for inviting offer for the said sealed shop on 29.7.2006. It is further submitted that in the year 2012, petitioner cannot be allowed to agitate the same, since the shop in question might have been settled with some other person and grievances of the petitioner are wholly without merit and cannot be entertained in the writ jurisdiction.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the cancellation of the shop is not in question in the writ application. Moreover, petitioner was allowed opportunity on 5.9.2006 to file an amendment petition / supplementary affidavit, which he has not availed and today when the case is being argued it is sought to be emphasized that certain articles lying in the sealed shop should be handed over to the petitioner. In the entire memo of the writ petition, there is no reference of any articles which is lying within the shop neither in the representation contained in annexure-4 any detail of such articles have been given. In fact the burden is on petitioner to at least give total description of the articles supposedly lying within the sealed shop. In that view of the matter, respondent cannot be directed under the writ jurisdiction to hand over the alleged articles said to be lying within the sealed shop. Moreover the shop itself is subject to fresh allotment by the impugned tender and there is no interim order also staying the operation of the advertisement. Therefore, it would not be advisable to issue any direction to the respondent- R.M.C. to hand over the alleged articles as claimed by the petitioner, as the petitioner miserably failed to establish even the details of the articles along with its description and number. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance, there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.;